Merger? Should Have Been Done Yesterday. Bob Chase Saw That.

When I first ran for the NEA Executive Committee in 2002, I couldn't possibly anticipate all the questions that would be flung at me during all the interviews I'd have to endure. But I did know one of them: How do you feel about merger?

The issue was still pretty hot. In 1998, NEA President Bob Chase, a true visionary, thought he could hammer an NEA-AFT merger through the NEA Representative Assembly. It's evident that he believed that his personality and sheer will could perform a miracle and effect merger. AFT President Sandra Feldman pushed from her end to get her organization to merge, and that group approved.

Chase got past the then Executive Committee, the NEA Board of Directors, and a merger committee in a way that mirrored, if not directly reflected, the way in which Republicans find it nearly impossible to object to anything that ex- presently says; that is, you risked Chase's wrath if you stood in the way. But the difference was that the acquiescence of the leadership was not reflected in the knee-jerk support of the RA delegates. Teachers and support staff are an independent lot; if we sense power plays, we tend to push back with massive, passive resistance. As well as we can stampede like a herd of horses, we can also sit like mules.

So, even though the talk behind his back was that he'd have to learn the hard way, the proposal of merger was brought to the RA. And, as many expected, it got stuffed. It needed a 2/3 majority to make it a done deal, and it didn't even get half. As good an idea as it was, it just came on too fast for the RA.

Wisconsin favored merger overwhelmingly--and I unquestionably--but as a state affiliate, we were the cheeseheads that stood, if not alone, then with lots of empty seats. But that was because of our history. In 1976, after nearly a decade of fierce intra-labor competition and accusations of dirty tricks tossed at both sides, the NEA and AFT state affiliates declared peace and promised to respect each other's territories (with the NEA claiming the overwhelming number of locals). The armistice had worked, so we saw the greater good with trying to merge, one way or another. It took until 2014, though, for Wisconsin to try very, very hard to merge--but still failed. We still await that Great Pumpkin.

States like Illinois, Michigan, Alabama, Virginia and New Jersey, member-rich but fierce in identity, took a directly anti-merger stand. Those members couldn't imagine being merged with AFT folks anymore than, say, Ukraine can think of itself as Russian. They, too, had had ferocious disputes over territories; they, too, had had tumultuous histories. Nothing had been 'settled,' in any manner of the term. Their members overwhelmingly said no.

There were three states that had already merged, though: Minnesota, Montana, and Florida. Nothing disrupting their stances was done; they stayed merged. Other states were either in the pipeline or in discussions as to possible mergers, and we all knew it. But discussions are often no more than that, and the NEA is a confederation of affiliates, with the RA as the governing body. It might be influenced, but if there are strong opponents at the local and/or state level, whatever someone wants for the whole group is going nowhere. Democracy is sometimes like herding cats.

Chase had crossed a bridge too far, and led a parade with only 42 percent behind him. So a follow-up new business item and a compromise of sorts was passed, allowing Chase to save face after being drubbed. We decided to wait until the number of merged states reached six, and then the discussion would take place again. That was acceptable, so we moved on.

So when I was asked about that, the first time in Alaska, I knew there was a conflict between stances of what I and my home state had taken and that which what many other affiliates, which combined had many more votes at the RA, had done and had never budged. (Interestingly, neither has Wisconsin, though it has tried; despite its bold stance in 1998, it has never merged with AFT.) My answer was a political one: Merger would take place when the political situation demanded it. It was logical, it was safe, and it leaned toward merger without driving the idea around like it was on the Indy speedway. And, in 2002, the vote had been sufficiently recent so that nerves were still on edge because plenty of leaders involved in initial conversations were still around.

But now it's nearly 2022, going on two decades later. I'm not privy to discussions so I have no idea, absolutely none, where national merger sits or how close things are in any one state. To be sure, more states have merged, but in a way that reflected the path of least resistance, as in New York (pretty much a hostile takeover by AFT) and North Dakota (with a minuscule number of AFT members). Note that makes five; that magic sixth merger hasn't happened, and it's been going on a quarter-century now. Some large locals have also followed suit, as in Austin, Texas; Los Angeles; Topeka, Kansas; and San Francisco. But it's way, way, WAY past time when national merger should have happened. 

In the end, I was accurate: Merger should be dictated by external political situations. But that time has passed long ago. It should have been done yesterday: in fact, many yesterdays ago. One has to wonder what it will take, or whether it is already too late. But even obviously pervasive political challenges haven't tipped the scales.

The merging of the three million member NEA and 900,000, more or less, of the AFT might not cause a huge turnaround in how the country views and supports public education. But there is still power in numbers, and both organizations have had, and taken, opportunities to shoot themselves in the foot instead of uniting permanently and driving initiatives inside state legislatures and Congress.

Have they ever combined forces? Sure, especially during state and federal elections. NEA and AFT have always supported the Democratic presidential candidate, for instance; I can't recall when they haven't. But when the polls shut down, so do the united fronts. Both groups go back to their respective camps and preserve their identities.

There are structural barriers to merger, to be sure:

• Term limits--The NEA has a 6-year term limit for members of state and national leadership (usually two 3-year terms), the AFT has not. Randi Weingarten, for instance, has been president of the AFT since 2008.
• Running campaigns on a 'ticket'--the AFT runs presidents, vice-presidents, secretaries and treasurers on a 'ticket' basis, the NEA does not. That doesn't stop people from pairing up NEA candidates in.their minds, but their campaign signs or literature do not join people together.
• Minority guarantee--the NEA has a 'minority guarantee' policy that demands that if there are minorities willing to run for state positions and none are otherwise elected, a minority candidate must fill a position designed specifically to guarantee that minorities are represented in leadership. The AFT has no such requirement. In addition, the NEA's state affiliates have to promise that, if they cannot fill quotas of minority members to represent them at the NEA-RA, they must prove that they try very hard (which exposes the unending, unfulfilled need for minority people in the classroom). The AFT does not go to that trouble.

But there are other barriers as well:

• State or large local affiliates--especially those that had (and still have) issues with the other side, and those that have a lot of members to whom influential leaders can say that, after all this time, it's still a bad idea to merge. It still looks like too big a tradeoff--a gain in external power, but a clear loss in internal power.
• Identity--in states where one outnumbers the other but the other maintains a decent presence, true compromise, where no one gains an outward advantage, is difficult to gain. It comes down to a simple question: How come we lose influence? Because that means you have to give up what was once your identity.
• Elections--those of state or large local affiliates in which the other side has always been a thorn in their fannies. No one running for a significant leadership position can promise conciliation without seriously threatening their chances for election or re-election.
• Egos (or Pride, if you wish)--especially if merging would mean that one side's leader would stay the leader and the other one wouldn't. The only way to solve this is to make both promise that they won't run the next time. Having maneuvered and politicked for years to gain power, though, it's a lot to ask to give it up just to be nice.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has made progress on any of these fronts. People can pretend that they've tried, but time and tide have proven otherwise. The enemies of public education keep chipping away at what it calls the "monopoly" of state union membership amidst teaching and support staffs, plotting legal and quasi-legal methods to undermine them. The latest is the absurd declaration that teachers have been dictating "critical race theory" in school classrooms for years, justifying the latest effort to introduce or re-introduce, advertise or re-advertise vouchers into school choice options.

A united front might go a long way to dismiss, challenge or disprove these claims. But it isn't there. Yes, both unions have concluded that this is ridiculous, but who knows if they'll be separately strong enough to turn it back?

It has long ago become necessary for these two significant education unions to put their differences aside and make the big move. It's become painfully clear that there's no other way to fuse the efforts of two labor organizations which have had their individual successes and at least try to create a powerhouse that will turn back the ever-rising forces that undermine and aim to destroy public education, replacing it with a vacuum of disconnected nothingness. 

We are not so far from that any longer, and certainly closer than at the advent of No Child Left Behind in 2002. Betsy DuVos certainly isn't the only Cruella who is aiming at the ultimate failure of education unionism by spreading the poison of school choice and its various components.

Merger must happen, and soon. Someone will pay a price, yes, but the price that all in public education are paying--the slow but steady costs of death by a thousand cuts and thousands of nonsensical claims--is being witnessed daily, in large communities and small, throughout our land. It is a growing disaster, and a desperate tragedy. In the end, Bob Chase's vision must triumph.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

May the Wind Be At Your Back, Tom

I never had a bad meeting or conversation with Tom Barrett. He'd find a way to turn something bad into something good or at least hopeful.

I and several other NEA Directors from Wisconsin lobbied Barrett when he represented the state's 5th Congressional District from 1993-2003. I do not recall having to talk with his staffers in his place, either. When it came time to meet, he was always there.

That's saying a lot. Congresspeople usually leave lobbying, especially lobbying the way we did it, which was something like four times a year at predictable intervals, to their staffs. They catch up on new information, if there is any to be shared--the major reason behind lobbying, by the way--later. To say they were too busy wasn't necessarily a brush-off, though it certainly could have been: Congresspeople run all over the place. Multi-tasking, in committees and subcommittees, might not be what they originally bargained for, but it's what they're saddled with.

I had no idea whether Tom was always glad to see us, but he always acted like it. He's a Democrat, so he fell into step with most of whatever the NEA was peddling at any one particular time. Or perhaps we were more or less in step with him.

But the meetings were, generally, fun and lighthearted, as he always tried to be. He could be serious, but knew he was amongst friends.

His political ambitions hit their limits when he sought the governor's mansion. He lost in the primary in 2008, then in two general elections when the state crossed over to the dark side and supported Mr. F. Gow (most recent former governor of Wisconsin) in 2010 and when he was recalled in 2012. I never thought he put together a package of positions that sufficiently defined his candidacies, though he probably would have made a decent governor. The timing of that loss was devastating to the Wisconsin teachers' unions, which have had to endure the knee-capping effects of the awful Act 10.

But he didn't step down from being mayor of Milwaukee during either campaign. It became a good fit, not a booby prize. Mild-mannered though he usually is, he also gained a stand-up-guy reputation in 2009 when he defended someone from being mugged at the State Fair and his hand was broken and a tooth chipped by a guy with a pipe (who should be getting out of jail about now). So much for the myth of the wimpy liberals.

This isn't an easy city to hold together. It still is one of the most segregated large cities in America. And, of course, the pandemic held its own challenges. But he didn't shrink from what needed to be done; he ordered, and justifiably maintained, a lockdown to lessen the spread of the virus. There is a certain toughness to him that he doesn't flaunt because he doesn't have to. With that understated competence, he was the longest-serving mayor of a large American city when he stepped down the other day.

I would think that his assignment as ambassador to Luxembourg is down the priority list for President Biden. It fits better into the 'just reward' category, for being a productive and loyal Democrat who will maintain the high standards of the State Department, challenged horribly by ex- and his thugs. It's got a nice, comfortable feel to it. Perhaps it fit both men's priorities.

When my life needed changing, I went out of my way to find a dwelling in what was then the 5th Congressional District, because I knew Tom Barrett would represent me. When I retired, I came back to Milwaukee because Tom was its mayor. Nobody should be surprised, then, if someday I go looking for real estate in Luxembourg.

You will be missed, Tom Barrett. As the Irish say, may the wind be at your back.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Abortion's Curtailment Will, in the Long Run, Backfire. Right As Rain.

I've known for a long time that I don't think in the mainstream about everything. But let's take a good look at the possible effects of abortion's probable upcoming curtailment in the United States.

Yes, there will be fewer abortions, but how much fewer won't be recorded because so many will now be done in secret. Prohibition didn't take away the need for a beer or two, right?

The reason we have such knowledge is that, as a medical procedure, records are kept by doctors, hospitals, clinics, credit card companies, and the like. Those will go away, either altogether or in the states in which abortion will, very quickly, be declared illegal. So we won't know anything, except the holy-holies, including the Federalist Society's Leonard Leo, the chair of punitive Catholicism (never mind the priest scandals) and manipulator of Supreme Court rulings on this matter, will declare that their god has, at last, saved America from moral depravity.

But that's where the benefit ends. Because in making it more difficult for people of color to terminate pregnancies, the excessively religiously afflicted have guaranteed that those same people of color will become the majority of people in this country all that much faster. And they don't want that.

It's simple logic: If you don't terminate the pregnancy, the fetus comes to term and becomes part of the polity. In 18 years--not too terribly long--it becomes a voter. If the abortion issue is, as well, racially charged, so will be the expanse of the population in that direction. If you haven't heard already, we're going to be a nation of a majority of minorities in about twenty years anyhow. 

Do the math. There will be an explosion, and all kinds of things will start happening, including the resentment of those peoples of color against white folks who have been suppressing their progress and success for about four hundred years now. That I might not be around to witness that won't stop it from happening.

And the anti-abortionists will usher that along. I hesitate to project just how much the country might change in those twenty years--maybe a lot, and not in a good way--but my guess is that white people will begin to reap the whirlwind of the inequities and prejudices that they laid upon others. They won't like it much. The difference is that they won't be able to firewall themselves against the effects: the coin of systemic racism may well flip, and with a deserved vengeance.

I want to stay healthy. If it's at all possible for me to be around to witness this, I want to do so. I want to remember what I wrote in late 2021 that predicted this. It'll be like a tsunami: With the obvious attempts of Republicans to mute the effects of people of color now, it'll seem like the shores have widened and expanded, as if white people could stop worrying. But then it'll cascade and overwhelm them, without any more places to hide.

Too far off for now. Way-way. But right as rain, it'll come.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster or a Pfizer pill. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Brian Williams' Concluding Comment

Sometimes, it's better to let yourself get out of the way and let others say what you might be able to, but not nearly as well.

That's what Brian Williams, former host of the MSNBC news show "The 11th Hour with Brian Williams" was very good at. It's what made the show one of the best of its kind, if not the best, on regular or cable TV, while ironically showing at a time many people go to bed.

Williams retired last night, but not before pulling over to the side of the road and, at long last (though you knew by the kinds of guests he had and the details he featured), telling us how he felt about the general state of things. I'm printing the cogent bulk of his comments here, so I and anyone else can look back and refer to them:

My biggest worry is for my country. I'm not a liberal or conservative. I'm an institutionalist. I believe in this place. And in my love for my country I yield to no one. But the darkness on the edge of town has spread to roads and highways and neighborhoods. It's now at the local bar and the bowling alley and the school board and in the grocery store.

Grown men and women, who swore an oath to our Constitution, elected by our constituents, possessing the kinds of college degrees I can only dream of, have decided to join the mob and become something they are not, hoping we somehow forget who they were. They've decided to burn it all down with us inside. That should scare you to no end as much as it scares an aging volunteer fireman.

I will wake up tomorrow in the America of the year 2021, a nation unrecognizable to those who came before us and fought to protect it--which is what you must do now.

I sit here writing a blog, mostly on politics, with a very small following. It isn't enough, I know, but it's a contribution. I would do something else if I knew what to do. I'm too old to run for office. I avoid the members of the 'mob' to which he refers, mostly because they infuriate me with their thuggish stupidity and bullying and their intentional ignorance of the truth that stares them in the face. Outside of confronting them and absorbing their insults, I'm not sure what else I can do.

Maybe I can work internally, convincing those of my general political positioning that first, being nice gets people nowhere; and second, speaking out is risky but has become far more necessary than ever. We dangle nearer the cliff of fascism than ever, and our combined voices are all we have. I think that''s what Brian Williams meant. If not, it's close enough.

In the meantime, I'll be here at my post, for as long as the First Amendment allows (not a sure thing anymore, especially if ex- returns to haunt). I will miss Brian Williams immensely at 10 p.m., and I hope he re-emerges somewhere else accessible. All the best to him.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

"Peril" and "Betrayal": Don't Choose. Read Them Both.

I've performed a challenging task: I've read both Peril and Betrayal. Both were difficult to finish, despite the simple language with which they were written, because first, I knew the ending, as do we all; and second, to relive ex-'s time in office is distressing, to say the least.

But I felt I had to. Both books have spent time atop the New York Times best-seller list; indeed, Betrayal is there now. They represent different styles of reporting.

Peril is as close to straight-up journalism as it can possibly be. Very little personal references are made to either of the authors, Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. Their personal feelings aren't recorded.

What they've done is managed to get, first of all, Mark Milley, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on record. If you consider what he clearly told them and no one else, Milley saved the republic. First, he dialed back his naive, in-uniform appearance at the George Floyd demonstrations just outside the White House in June, 2020, basically apologizing for it as a lack of realization of what ex- was trying to represent by striding outside the White House gates, through Lafayette Park and to the doorstep of St. John's Church, just across the street, posing with a bible in his hand. The first opportunity he had, Milley told the public that that was a mistake, that the military should have nothing to do with political affairs and was there to defend the Constitution, not support the political gain of any individual. That was, of course, the correct stance, whether any future chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff decides to follow such an example or not. And if ex- gets re-elected, you can bet Milley will be among the first he fires in a purge that will make heads spin.

But the second thing he did, the thing that Woodward and Costa reveal by their reporting, is that Milley convened those who could carry out a deranged president's orders to begin a war with someone in the declining days of a failed presidency. He made them look him square in the eye and tell him that if any aggressive orders came from the White House, they would be run past Milley first. They all promised to do so. That opportunity never came, but Milley, by his constitutional position, in fact flirted with violating that same Constitution by assuring the nation that a madman wouldn't unnecessarily put it at risk. After all, the president is the commander-in-chief and can utilize the nation's military resources at will. But that has always assumed relatively sound judgment--which that president never had and never will.

That is just one of a number of reportorial gems that Woodward and Costa reveal. But like Jonathan Karl, the author of Betrayal, they had to promise non-disclosure of many sources to bring forward their accounts. That jeopardizes the authenticity of their accounts, of course. But such is the amazing power of their subject--that enough people incredibly follow such a blatant liar and grifter that attribution of anything negative, explicitly or implicitly, can create such damage to mean political suicide. The emotional grip he has on millions cannot and should not be denied. It is a cult in full, shameful view.

No one who has contributed any relevant information revealing ex- to be incredibly unfit to be president, who hasn't already been condemned by him, gave his or her name to whatever interviewer caught up with them first. That many felt it necessary to contribute to the record means that, at least on paper, they still believe in our democracy and want it to succeed; Milley is but one unsung hero (many deluded extremists and frightened sycophants, too) we meet within the pages. Without various contributions, we'd be in even tougher shape than we're in now, dangling at the edge of legitimacy. But they miss the most important issue: accountability. Without specific attribution, the reliability of the information within both sets of pages can always be attacked--and will be, you can bet on it--despite the previously established reputations of the authors. In America, fear is always highly operational.

Both books, naturally, provide important details on the uprising and failed (for now) coup of January 6. Betrayal is demonstrably better because Karl managed to get more people to discuss just how scary it all was from different perspectives--and where Vice-President Pence was and how he acted during those hours (The browbeating he had to endure was truly amazing. I have a real problem with his politics, but the toughness of his spine cannot be questioned.).

Peril, while accurate, doesn't get to the level of Karl's on that topic. Woodward's prestige, in a sense, prevents him from the gumshoeing that Karl can still perform; he's a reporter's reporter, asking the questions that needed to be asked without worrying about reputation. Perhaps that's why Woodward had Costa accompany him; the mere mention of his name to perform interviews, especially after writing two previous accounts of ex-'s presidency, probably scared off some who might have provided other fascinating, vital facts. A big name gives you unique access, yes, but it also closes down some, too.

Since he's the ABC News White House correspondent, Karl's style surprises because we're used to seeing his productivity for two minutes at a time during the news at 5:30 rather than in print. He takes us aside every so often and expresses the outrage that so many of us feel and felt upon hearing ex-'s stupidity and lies. He's not afraid to express, and recognizes the importance of, his own contribution to the coverage of ex-'s exploits, but it doesn't feel an extension of his ego; he was there--for instance, inside the White House during the abovementioned demonstrations--and those were the questions he asked. And he managed to keep ex- on a relatively long reportorial string until it became clear that his power, though now unofficial, would be maintained after losing the election. 

He must be an excellent interviewer: The things that people told him, and no one else, show that his calming but persistent manner creates an atmosphere of trust while not sacrificing opportunities to ask vital questions. If he needed attrbution, however disguised by the skittish, he provides it right then and there: "Two sources who also heard that conversation...."

Of course, the two accounts overlap; they portray the same relative time. The danger of January 6 becomes quite evident in both. But Peril also moves into the first part of President Biden's term and the challenges that a small Congressional majority comprise, especially if the other side simply refuses to cooperate in any measurable way. Their writing loses its intensity, mainly because reporting on anything Congress does can easily get lost in the weeds. But that takes up little of the book's conclusion, and the rest is fascinating and vital to know.

Both books come to a sad, frightening conclusion: That the Republican Congressional leadership had a brief chance to dismiss this presidency as a tragic mistake, to do a reboot, so to speak, and bring the issues facing the nation back into proper focus. They could have shown real leadership, putting country before party; heaven knows, there's plenty more to distinguish the policy differences within Congress and without. But they didn't. 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, in particular, will stand guilty of wasting such an opportunity. His visit to Mar-A-Lago within days of the end of ex-'s presidency created the aura of legitimacy that allowed ex- to re-establish himself as the leader of a demented cult that masquerades as a political party. He, too, is revealed as desiring power for its own sake, based on nothing else than prestige. He will fail because ex- will sweep him aside whenever he feels like it. His visit gave ex- the gravitas to do so.

Mitch McConnell has done so, too, far more subtly, but with the same fear of being supplanted as anything more than titular Senate Minority Leader. But the sad matter is, that's already been done. McCarthy put McConnell in a corner with no way out. Republican Senators are locked in line on nearly all substantive issues not because of extraordinary discipline commandeered by McConnell, but because they, too, have their political lives in jeopardy if they but waver from ex-'s iron-fisted grip. Their votes are already chosen for them. Their states have been already compromised.

Individually, these are excellent books. Their thoroughness is a tribute to the skills of the authors in getting down to relevant facts and their ultimate meaning. Their styles are what their authors find to be comfortable. Betrayal is far more conversational, but Peril, threadbare of emotion, does not take a back seat.

If you're looking for a holiday present, or greater depth, for those you believe need to understand the impact of this odd and very dangerous time in our history, I cannot recommend one book over the other. Now that I've read them, I think you need to get both of them and immerse in the revelation of clear and obvious threats to our democratic system--threats that are ongoing and seem to be resisting legitimate efforts to head them off.

It's just another way of saying what many have found true: If you want to know something well, read about it. If you want to know more, read more.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Wisdom? No Longer at the Supreme Court. We Are All Likely to Pay.

One of the things you could count on at the Supreme Court, regardless of whether you agreed with it, was some legal wisdom about whatever was being argued. You know, something that revealed that the Court member had, indeed, been legally trained and was legally thoughtful in a way that the average person, even one with a college education, couldn't achieve because they simply not put in the time or purposeful thought.

They'd come forward with legal phraseology, the combination of words that the rest of us used but in ways that described ideas we hadn't thought of. That would raise the discussion above anything done on the street. Of course, that's what they were there for--to figure out decisions nobody else could.

In terms of the legal concepts, then, Supreme Court members were simply smarter than we were. And that's to be expected.

That's why I blanched when I heard Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by ex-, say very casually that if a woman became pregnant and didn't want the baby, all she needed to do was bring it to a legally arranged place within her state--police station, hospital, or the like--and drop it off. There. Done. Then the child would be adopted. That simple.

That sounds like any woman who's had seven kids without a thought of terminating any of them, restricted by her understanding of whatever her religion dictates. It also sounds like millions of conversations had by regular, average people like me for years now. That made me the equivalent to a Supreme Court justice, because I'd had such a discussion thirty years ago.

It makes you wonder: If someone like her, raised to the highest legal position possible in this land, simply narrowing the argument against abortion down to such a simple issue, first of all, what's this doing at the Supreme Court at all? And secondly, what's she doing sitting on the highest court, when we could have gotten someone with far more brains, or perhaps the desire to use them?

This is why she and Clarence Thomas, as biased as anyone who's ever served on the Court, went out not long ago and tried to convince the at-large public that they weren't being political. Yes, they were, and yes, they are. And saying so doesn't make it so. Their attempt at persuasion landed with a decided thump.

Don't believe what your eyes tell you, they're saying: Believe what we say. Someone else tried that not too terribly long ago. And he will do it again.

They were preparing the public for what they are surely going to do--revert us backwards fifty years to a moment when women will have to travel hundreds of miles or sneak around trying to find doctors willing to break laws to give them the right they've had to terminate pregnancies because, within limits previously stated, it's nobody's damn business what they do with their bodies.

I don't think they are intentionally being evil. I think, in the name of hyper-applied religion that will forever go unstated, they are submitting to what they believe to be God's law, instead of common law. That goes back way-way before the writing of the very Constitution that they will be shoehorning their ruling into, stipulating that since the word "privacy" isn't specifically mentioned in there, it doesn't and shouldn't apply.

That will create a police state here. Not only will authorities be able to destroy the very meaning of privacy with respect to control that women need to have over their bodies, it will also lead to searches and seizures that will smash the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to tiny bits, rendering it meaningless. For the meaning of "privacy" will not be restricted only to women trying to end pregnancies. Wait and see.

It will mean something else, too, in terms of the Supreme Court's legitimacy. Sonia Sotomayor had a point: Taking away fifty years of precedent, failing to rise above the politics of the matter, will make people's impressions of the Court and its meaning to be far different. Consensus will no longer be possible, even available. It'll just be a numbers game. The moral value of its ruling will be diluted, and people will be no longer paying much attention. That Amy Coney Barrett tried to plead the opposite will be lost in the weeds. 

I have said it here before and I'll say it again: If you restrict the meaning of the Constitution to what it merely states explicitly, you are by its very nature eliminating what John Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison: That the Supreme Court gets to interpret what the Constitution says and means. Why? Because he declared it to be so, not because the text of the Constitution dictated it. It seemed to make sense at the time, and has through the present day. That doesn't mean it will last forever, though.

Someone's going to come along and simply overrule whatever the Supreme Court says should be the law of the land, and say that long, long ago--1803, to be exact--John Marshall declared something he shouldn't have declared, and that the Supreme Court is there only to rule upon conflicts between states--which is the original intent of the document. They might even make it sound absolutely brilliant, as if nobody has thought of it before. But the purpose will merely be to dodge a ruling they don't like, and avoid enforceability and responsibility.

See? Such a widely meaningful concept as "originalism" can, too, be turned on its head and mean exactly what someone with too much power wants it to mean. I have no idea why nobody else has written about this, but I see it clearly. Words only mean what they do as applied to circumstances and have general acceptance, but when someone explodes it and has the force necessary to back it up, the applicability shifts dramatically.

Such a statement will far more officially make the Supreme Court meaningless. And if it is, then all courts beneath it will also be meaningless, for they will lack the necessity to appeal to higher courts. And when courts are meaningless, then the force of law belongs to the entity with the most physical force behind it. That may not become evident immediately, but test upon test, circumstance upon circumstance, will reveal it. That is the gateway to fascism.

The unintended consequences of this upcoming devastating ruling will be themselves devastating. I fear for the country and the deepening divisions that will result. Not only pregnant women will be affected; we are all very likely to pay. That Amy Coney Barrett doesn't get that, that she can't see the greater wisdom, reflects a diminished capability of the Supreme Court that's supposed to stabilize our world, but in fact will unravel it.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Let's Step Back for A Minute: Racism's Losing

Taken in order, Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal would seem like a severe setback for social justice advocates. And by itself, it's certainly out there, isn't it?

But in the last few days, racism has suffered a deep blow, one that should resonate across Thanksgiving tables today and other venues tomorrow. For while Rittenhouse's verdict would seem to vindicate vigilantism, the reasons behind it--lack of respect for appropriately applied law and order and white supremacy--caught two whacks upside the head.

I'm talking about, of course, the verdict in the lawsuit brought by opponents to the "Unite the Right" demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia, four years ago, and the guilty verdict in the murder case of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia.

The perpetrators in Virginia stand to lose a lot of money, even if every single part of the suit was not ruled to apply. They will appeal, naturally, so the actual, final delivery of the money might take additional years to transact--kind of like the four years it took to get these monsters in front of a jury. And it will not shut them up; they will do the same blame act they always have.

But the publicity surrounding the civil trial cannot be diminished. The First Amendment, thank goodness, has its limits. I am a strong advocate for that sacred document, but when it is used as a weapon to torture in the name of hate, it is a form of abuse that cannot be tolerated.

The three white murderers of a black man, just for jogging in a neighborhood they did not prefer, was, as Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post said the other day, a lynching. They tried to hide behind the law, stipulating that they were making a "citizen's arrest" of a potential burglar, one who had entered an abandoned house--isn't that what calling 9-1-1's supposed to be about? And the police had been called by someone else--but that found no traction. Like many of their type, they were trying to dial the clock back to 1960, even accusing black preachers of intimidating the jury with their presence,  but lots of litigation has gone under the bridge by now. 

But the case had parallels in Kenosha. A gun was involved. The gun toter in Georgia also believed that the deceased was trying to take the gun away and potentially use it on him, so he shot first, claiming self-defense. So is this about guns, or race? Both contain poison in their usage.

We'll never completely know. All the people involved in Kenosha were white, though the deceased were demonstrators protesting the shootings of black men. The deceased in Georgia was black. Eleven of the 12 jurors were white. The district attorney in Brunswick County, Georgia had shown deference toward one of the accused, said the New York Times (and a grand jury), but she was defeated for re-election. The prosecution was made by the district attorney's office of Cobb County, where Atlanta lies.

Again, the verdict will be appealed. A lawyer for one of the guilty in Georgia plans to file for a new trial. Well, anyone can file for something. But again, it takes a serious breach of protocol and process for an appellate court to erase the verdict of 12 people and start over. And note, too, that the judge, Timothy Walmsey, went out of his way to avoid making a spectacle of himself, as opposed to the bizarre eccentrism and grandstanding of Judge Bruce Schroeder in Kenosha.

But the word is out now: Racism will have stronger legal ramifications. Atticus Finch's famous courtroom speech in To Kill A Mockingbird resonates with many of us, but the unfair guilty verdict was in the minds of the jury before that ever happened. Not today, not at least in some places. And badly inspired by ex-, many racists and white supremacists will continue to spew their hate. But sometimes, it seems as if the tide is turning.

It's a big country, and it's easy to get discouraged when things don't turn out well. But racism seems to be losing now, and while it will take a long, long time to right the ship of justice, it still seems to be sailing along despite the choppy seas. Let us hope it continues.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster shot. Happy Thanksgiving. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

These People Are Relentless: Even Trying to Fool You About Ornaments

When I was spending significant time in Washington, DC, with both the NEA Board of Directors and the NEA Executive Committee, I found a shop belonging to the White House Historical Association. It sells lots of commemorative historical items, which are well made and meant to increase pride in being an American.

When my days ended, I decided that probably the best way to extend nice memories was to purchase the White House Commemorative Christmas Ornament, the development of which began in 1989, upon the 200th anniversary of George Washington's inaugural presidential year. Each year, the 'next' president is honored with some kind of designation on the ornament reminding us of his presidency. All of them are classy, ornate, complex and quite beautiful. They look great on anyone's tree.

My Christmas tree has filled up with them--I really don't need any other kinds--as well as others commemorating the first meetings of Congress or the building of the White House itself. You can also go back to the beginning and get all of them at once. They are also sold in groups of five. We haven't always had terrific presidents, as you well know, but their commemorative Christmas ornaments are worth having.

By this year, the succession has come to Lyndon Johnson. The ornaments are terrific. I make sure to get one for special people in my life as well as myself. They aren't cheap, but the value remains great.

Being too far away now, I don't go to the shop in DC to get them, as I used to and just put them into the luggage. You can order them online, of course. Any self-respecting business has a means of access.

So do businesses that aren't quite so respectful. If you aren't careful, you could wind up contributing to ex-'s campaign, or so it appears. These people are relentless. They even try to pry your money out of you unwittingly under the auspices of patriotism at Christmas--which, I would guess, lots of people have already fallen for, as I nearly did myself.

When you type "White House Historical Association" into your browser, it isn't the first thing that comes up on the selection page. Actually, the real website is at least two titles down, if not more. The top title says "2021 White House Holidays Ornt--Purchase Your Ornament Today." Looks genuine, right? Sounds like the same. It isn't. You have to be sure that the listing of the website address is the one you want. This one wasn't, but it sounded like it could be.

If you open it, it has that same genuine feel. You can click right on an icon of the ornament itself and, of course, the website takes you right there--for $34.95. The real White House Historical Association, though, doesn't charge $34.95 for its ornaments. Instead, it charges ten dollars less, $24.95.

So where do those extra ten dollars go? That would be a good question. If you continue down the first site, though, you begin to get a sinking feeling that this doesn't have much to do with history--it has everything to do with fund-raising.

A few pages into the site, there are items promoting ex-'s supposedly upcoming 2024 campaign. Now, in no place at any time have I ever seen the actual White House Historical Association promote anyone's political efforts. But here's a classic bait-and-switch: As long as you're here, why not buy that stuff, too? And where does that money go?

If it should happen to find the coffers of ex-'s re-election campaign, I wouldn't be surprised in the least. I can't know for sure, of course, and I don't have the resources of a great media organization. But I'd certainly like one of them to check it out.

Is this illegal? I would bet not. I would bet that someone's lawyers have done the appropriate research and know the fine line between copying someone's site and getting close. But if it nearly fooled me, and I'm not that gullible, it certainly fooled others who want nothing to do with politics at Christmas. And who's going to take them to court?

Thing is, it's sneaky. There are other historical items in the selections, some of which are also on the White House Historical Association's site. I was also looking for a particular book, though, which this phony site didn't have. That got my attention, because I was sent a catalog in which it was displayed. 

Again, the phony site is listed on the web page first. You have to scroll down to get the actual White House Historical Association site. The genuine site has a copyright emblem attached to it, but people aren't always paying attention to that.

If you are just looking for ornaments, you could be easily tricked, especially if you hadn't bought anything on the real site before. You could also be, by paying inflated prices, giving a donation to ex-. You might like that. You also might not.

If this is all going to his coffers, or any part of it, it is folly to assume that he doesn't know about this. He is the ultimate control freak. He thinks all of us are chumps, even his friends for believing in him when all he's about is himself. He is insidious and conniving. He'll get the last dime out of anybody and everybody he can. Ethics ceased to matter long ago.

They really are nice ornaments. Just don't go for the first website listed. Scroll down just a little. You'll stay non-partisan, and contribute to a piece of history that ought to remain so. Don't be fooled when you get presents for those you care about, so the source isn't someone who doesn't care at all about you or anyone.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

The Brown Shirts: Will They Return?

When I heard of Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal on all counts against him, I thought of the rallies and protests surrounding ex-'s inauguration in January, 2017. You remember--the one with the pink knit hats pushing back against his claims that he could grab women by the, uh, you know.

Hundreds of thousands of 'woke' folks hit the streets back then. I was an active participant in Madison as a staffer with AFSCME.

Of course we did it. We exercised our sacred First Amendment rights against an awful decision the country had made--to elect a completely amoral person as president. He was as bad as we imagined he would be, and he nearly got another four years to boot.

Expect much less of that from now on. We now know that the automatic weapon was not brought in from a neighboring state. I'm not sure, outside of filing more charges, what difference that made in the end. It was still utilized under the auspices of 'protecting the realm' and used it after others responded, one with a weapon of his own.

Next time, what's to prevent the guy with the pistol, who paid with his life, from firing it first? Would you wait? What's to prevent a showdown and a shootout in the street right then and there?

Next time, what's to prevent a whole bunch of other people--whether police arrive on time or not may not matter--with automatic weapons from gathering together, rushing protestors and scattering them like ants, even though they otherwise would have a perfect right to be there? What's to prevent the people with weapons from dressing similarly, identifying them as supporters of someone, each other, or both--even getting uniforms?

That's what the Nazis did in the early 1930s. They created a 'people's army'--the S.A., or the Brown Shirts--and rode around in open-backed trucks, yelling at anyone they didn't like. Yell back, and they stop the truck, pile out, and pile on the protestor. The police, similarly politicized under the facade of 'law and order,' would look the other way. They practiced active racism and those in the way paid the price. The result would be general, enforced silence--just the way they like it.

I don't see the effects of Kyle Rittenhouse's verdict being much different. As I have written, the Supreme Court is soon to rule upon a law in New York which clarifies the right of anyone to carry a weapon outdoors anywhere, anytime. With that in effect, either protestors will have to be sure to form their own militias or at least make sure there are a representative number of people there who are similarly armed and have firepower to match those who object to them.

Tell me, if you would, that nothing will happen. Tell me, if you would, that the perpetrators of real trouble and real violence would be easily sorted out, arrested and dealt with appropriately. The American Revolution began at Lexington, where the colonists first faced the British with weapons. Someone fired a shot. We still don't know who, or what side he was on. The 250th anniversary of that event takes place four years from now.

Again, let me repeat: the police would, and now probably will, have to make choices about whose weapons they would assist. Otherwise, there would have to be enough of them to disarm everyone at the scene. It says here that from now on, that task may prove to be impossible. The National Guard would have to be called out more often, not less, and that is how you become a police state.

The total effects of this will be to suppress progressives from exercising their perfect right to protest. By their very nature, they would not be the ones to bring guns to their events. The other side would, and would bring plenty of outsized weapons to get people to go home. One or two kinds of these confrontations would make progressives back way, way off. And the right-wing monsters, those begging for support from ex-, would take complete control, would need to be in control to show ex- how great they were. Bragging rights, in other words.

If you doubt this, read Max Boot's opinion essay in The Washington Post today. Perhaps that will be evidence enough. The Republican Party has sold out on authoritarianism wherever it may lead, and it almost always leads to violence.

Yes, this sounds scary. You can explain away the verdict all you want, but it's the core message that it sends to those who crave power that matters most. The next time some kind of social justice demonstration happens, we will see how well that message has resonated.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

The Rittenhouse Trial: Can Cooler Heads Prevail, Now and in the Future?

The buzz surrounding the Kyle Rittenhouse trial centers around his emotional breakdown on the stand. So many see that as crocodile tears--that, in effect, he was faking it. They compare his reaction to that of Brett Kavanaugh, who shed comparable tears while under attack at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate.

I disagree. The two are not the same, although the effects of the two might be: to make both look like unwitting victims, overwhelmed with false accusations.

Go back and consider the order in which the tears flowed. Kavanaugh's so-called emotional outburst took place after the first break in the questioning. The conjured crying happened after he'd been briefed and, apparently, told to go back in there with obnoxious, ferocious intent to show his supporters he was tough enough to withstand the attacks (ironically, but one can be so angry as to cry, which is a rather feminine response to an attack reflecting feminism, so there's that).

Rittenhouse's tears came up on him before his lawyers had a chance to roust him off the stand and let him catch his breath. Consider, also, the ages of the accused: Kavanaugh in his early 50s, Rittenhouse only 18.

Both were understandably scared, but Rittenhouse had, and has, a right to be far more scared than Kavanaugh. Should the latter have not survived muster, at least he still had a job, and rather prestigious one at that--an appellate judge. Life would have gone on pretty much as before.

Not Rittenhouse. He has years in jail ahead of him if convicted. He has his freedom for most of his adult life at stake. He has no basketball coaching of daughters to fall back on. After refusal, Kavanaugh still could have gone to the local 7-11 to get milk for his kids; Rittenhouse won't be able to think about that until, possibly, 2060 or so. Big, big difference.

We caught Rittenhouse at the moment when it all came crashing down upon him--the killings, the possibility of prison and the end of life as he knew it, the possible futility of maintaining his story about it since it had been captured on film. You don't fight your way out of trouble at age 18 very easily; you just don't have the savvy. It's not quite the same as hanging around in bars, bragging your fanny off about what you did.

So Rittenhouse's tears seem more genuine. Do I feel sorry for him? Not in the least. He did what he did. Two people are dead at his hand on an evening that he should have been home in Illinois with his video games, and he has to live with that. The problem is that the laws of Wisconsin might allow him to get away with it. That his lawyers let him expose his pathetic self on the stand may be deft or it may be a major mistake; 12 people have the unenviable duty to decide that.

As of this writing, the gun possession charge has been dropped, but that was the most minor of the offenses. That might mean that Kenosha County's prosecutors have a weakened case; it might mean that in the big picture, that charge is universally accepted as rather pointless, not worth the court's time.

That doesn't mitigate the nonsense he and his mother are trying to foment, though--namely, that he was trying to defend himself. That ignores, and willfully so, the fundamental question I haven't heard anybody utter from the very beginning of his sordid business: What in blue blazes was he even doing in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with a loaded automatic rifle that he'd gotten from someone else? 

He didn't live there. He wasn't responsible for the defense of the city. He wasn't a police officer. He wasn't a member of the National, or even someone else's, Guard. It wasn't even in his state. If things were that serious, why didn't dozens, even hundreds, of other minors from Illinois have their moms drive them north and comprise a citizen's army of protection of businesses they never patronized?

The results of all this could be very frightening indeed. They could encourage vigilantism if Rittenhouse is  freed from any remaining charges. They could result in people of color bringing also weapons with them to future protests in anticipation of that same vigilantism. Nothing good can come of that.

Consider, also, that the subject of the Kenosha protests, Jacob Blake, actually was committing criminal behavior when shot by a police officer last June--childnapping. "He's got my kid. He's got the keys." said a woman when a police officer approached, wrote the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel back in September, three months after the incident. A George Floyd-type myth of relative innocence had been created, more victimization of people of color by police established, and it skewed all reactions to this point. 

The reports about the children in the car were accurate. Police attempted to taser him before opening fire. We were left with the belief that the police officer overreacted when he shot Blake seven times and paralyzed him, with inherent racism hanging over it all. Now, we are left wondering whether it was ever the issue, and if not, why we didn't know those vital details months ago, and concluding that though something looked the same as an earlier transgression, it was merely someone doing his regrettable duty.

Now, I may not be sufficiently 'woke' about this, but I can't imagine a more compelling job by police than to protect kids from harm. That's what was happening. It may have looked the same as George Floyd, but in actuality, it wasn't at all. George Floyd was helplessly lying on his stomach on the street, handcuffed securely; there's no reason that officer needed to kneel on his neck for a single second. Jacob Blake was foolishly reaching for a knife. 

It also means that the ability to remain relatively cool-headed and wait for details has nearly been eclipsed with finger-pointing and jumping to conclusions in a racially tense atmosphere. It still, though, doesn't sufficiently explain why Kyle Rittenhouse found it necessary to bring a loaded automatic weapon to a town he was not familiar with, in a state in which he did not reside, to illicitly create order when it was clearly impossible to do so by attaching himself, however loosely, to some extralegal, racist, vigilante group that talks big but couldn't do it, either. Either way, he's just a kid who made rash decisions to enter a world far too big for him.

A desire to fulfill 'law and order' has come full circle for Rittenhouse. The jury will now discuss whether the law can be utilized to protect him or condemn him. The judge has given the jury room to convict Rittenhouse on lesser charges than first-degree murder; it increases the chance that he will serve prison time. 

The combination of this decision with a Supreme Court ruling, now pending, as to whether people should be allowed to walk around with weapons regardless of the situation--Wisconsin allows open carry--may accelerate a gun-toting culture beyond anyone's ability to subdue it. Meanwhile, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has called out 500 members of the National Guard to stand by to support local law enforcement. Once again, cooler heads need to prevail. Once again, it's becoming more doubtful that they will.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster, as I did last week. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

In 39 Pages, A Significant Rebuke

I read Judge Tanya Chutkan's 39-page opinion on ex-'s attempt to get papers and records regarding the insurrection of January 6 from being released. It comes down to one, simple thing: It doesn't matter if he's been president, even recently. Congress wants information, and Chutkan believes it deserves it.

Ex-'s claim of executive privilege is not ridiculous, at least not on its face. Such claims by former presidents can last for 12 years. But there has to be compelling reasons that overcome the public's (that is, Congress') need to get information. Which is to say: a former president's reasons for keeping things secret must be more important that Congress' desire to potentially make new laws based on them.

But that assumes that the former president's wishes take precedence over the one presently in office. That is never automatically true. The present president must consider a former president's request of executive privilege and becomes the balancing factor. If the former thinks the national interest is better served, he can acquiesce and keep the latter's papers and effects under wrap for up to those 12 years.

But if not, well, tough beans. Which is what Joe Biden basically said. He think we're better served by knowing things that got or might have gotten planned by ex- and associates regarding January 6. And he gets to say so first.

There are a number of presuppositions that ex- predictably made in even filing the suit:

1. Being a former president is equivalent to being the actual president. Nope, said Chutkan, that's never been true. Joe Biden is the director of the Executive Branch now, and has control over all presidential records, past and present. He gets first dibs on them. If he says they should be released, they will be.
2. A president should have perpetual control over his presidential records. Coming from him, a predictable hyperbole. That's not what the law says, though I'm guessing that's what he'll claim if and when this gets to the Supreme Court. (Once again, throwing whatever he can at a court to see if something sticks.)
3. The revelation of information of past presidents unnecessarily compromises the country. Well, that's for the present president to decide, said Chutkan. Besides, Ronald Reagan provided records on Iran-Contra, George W. Bush on 9/11, and Richard Nixon was, of course, forced to reveal his Watergate tapes--the foundation of Chutkan's decision. Ex- doesn't get to say anything about that anymore because he's no longer the president. Besides, it's what he did, in total and in parts, that has compromised the country.
4. Congress has to prove that what it seeks will lead to passable laws, and be specific about them. No, it doesn't. What it has to prove is that there's a compelling interest in discovery, and laws are possible. How can they tell the content of laws they might pass if they don't have information leading to them? Besides, if new laws regarding the counting of electoral votes and security surrounding the Capitol, aren't "necessary and proper (quoting the Constitution's Section 1)" in this instance, they never will be.
5. Congress can get the information it seeks elsewhere. But ex-'s lawyers don't say where. That's because those sources exist only theoretically, not actually. If they knew where, they would say so and point it out so that Congress could be about its business. The only source for the president's planning and plotting come from the president himself. He wants to keep those a secret. Chutkan says he can't. (I think this is something they just threw in there, knowing it's nonsense.)
6. Congress is harassing him. No, it isn't. It would if personal issues were the ones requested, perhaps. But his "activities, deliberations, and decision making in his capacity as President," is what's being sought. That's just whining, and we are sooooooo used to that.
7. The requests are overly broad. No, ex- doesn't get to decide that. Joe Biden does. And Joe Biden's approval of the requests mean that executive privilege need not be invoked. Done.
8. There is a 4-part test for invoking documents. One part, or any combination of parts, can supersede the others. Well, okay, but inapplicable here, because--see above--Joe Biden wants these documents turned over to Congress and revealed to the public. "The constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield, from Congress or the public, information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself," said the present White House counsel.

The Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed, for now, release of the documents, scheduled for today. The delay is frustrating and plays into ex-'s strategy to manipulate the courts to stall until something else can be planned. Of course, if he loses in appeal, it will go to the Supreme Court, which will decide whether to expedite its hearing--or not, making us wait that much longer, reducing the impact either way. 

It's just another way of saying it's too terribly bad that this awful person has ever been president--because he has control of some levers that he shouldn't have, including papers and effects that will be eventually be studied and analyzed. Those are privileges for someone who deserves them. He never should have gotten them in the first place. 

But his latest extralegal machinations, like those designed to overturn an election he fairly lost, will also run out. He will be left designing some kind of messaging making him the victim, not the additional loser in an additional battle he never should have had. We cannot simply cast him aside, try though we might. We must reckon, here too, with what we have wrought. 39 pages later, we're still left with that, despite the significant judicial rebuke.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster like I have. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Brian Williams: Sneaky Slot, Large Impact

I'm going to miss Brian Williams. Far often than he knows, he ended my day on a note of hope or an energetic defiance of policy based on nonsense.

Tuesday night, he announced that he was leaving NBC, most specifically his late night show "The 11th Hour" on MSNBC, at the end of this month. He's apparently going to explore different venues, and his talents, stuck in a way at the end of each evening, will have a chance to return to their previous status.

That's because of an act of hubris committed some years ago, when he for some reason felt he had to exaggerate the danger under which he traveled to get stories from Iraq. One wonders why that was, but he was removed from his flagship assignment, anchoring NBC's network evening news, and placed in a purgatory of afternoon (mostly) cable TV journalism, where his contract could be fulfilled but few would complain that he was having much impact.

His ego had to have been deflated. Yet, he set about re-creating his career from the bottom up. Once broken, trust takes far longer to be restored than to shatter. Note that he did not resign. He bit the bullet, accepted the consequences of his error and soldiered on. 

Gradually, he re-earned some credibility. In 2016, MSNBC game him a chance to redeem himself, if only late at night, where he could be jettisoned permanently if he messed up again. But the show seemed made for his puckish humor; dependable, informative guests who leaned left; and the use of facts to illustrate things that were decent or those that were awry that took more than cleverness. They were ways to demonstrate, without his actual commentary, that the world was changing and not always in good ways.

That his show was the day's last live broadcast and provided MSNBC with ballast to end each weekday's coverage. The stories Williams provided were very often repeats of things that others--Nicolle Wallace, Ari Melber, Joy Reid, Chris Hedges, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell--had already handled. There are, after all, only so many 'lead' stories per day. But with the guests he asked on and commentary that only he could provide, he seemed to wrap up the day in a way few others could. He had regained an enormous podium, but normally used exampling by action, and not with mere words. Far more often than not, it's as much how he pointed things out as what he said about them that made sufficient points, and provided his unique stamp. Here's one viewer that appreciated that and far more often than not, stayed up to absorb it.

He also anchored election coverages, for instance, being magnanimous to introduce and feature new voices, especially those of women, into the explanations of why things were happening. Mansplaining is something I never heard him do, not even subconsciously. He got out of the way of female talent and let it take over. But then, he was happy to be there, happy to be still working. That humility shown through, too, and seemed to maintain his perspective so he never again got out in front of himself.

But it's that voice, that demonstrative but calming voice, that I will miss the most. His tone was illustrative. When things were important, it could tell you so. When someone else tried to make them important but they really weren't, his jabs at such pomposity (especially by ex-, whose pathetic presidency was made for Williams) brought my grins and chuckles. But humor was never the major point: He is, has been, and will remain worried about the discourse of viewpoints in America.

Meanwhile, his Nightly News anchor position had been filled with an equally authoritative Lester Holt, who has nailed down that spot and become another dependable daily source. Williams knew he couldn't return to what he had had removed. He needed not only to be forgiven, but a venue with which to demonstrate that he deserved it. 

"The 11th Hour" became a settled-in part of MSNBC's daily bulwark of information for progressives to absorb, knowing that the incessant pounding of that kind of reportage had to be there to resist Fox News and its efforts to provoke resentment and anger at every turn. It became kind of a sneaky slot, ripe for development, and Williams took maximum advantage of it.

Within that show, he could once again demonstrate what being a thought leader could and should be: Based on fact, sufficiently assertive at any moment, but always reserving something for a follow-up that might not be necessary, but might then again be. Some control must govern all commentary. You know plenty and you've seen plenty, but you never know what's coming next. Crazy can never win out.

Williams knows that the cause goes on and he can and will be replaced. "The 11th Hour" was built around him, but he can let it go now. It has become bigger than him, as he noted in his comments last night. He has rebuilt his integrity, but there's nowhere else to rise. Even this late in his career, inertia won't deepen its grasp. 

He's 62 now, and could just fade away. But I doubt that he will. He has, reportedly, nothing lined up right now, but he's in a spot where he can watch for his next opportunity.

For the moment, he will now go it alone in a career that has seen its rises and falls. I'm guessing money isn't the issue; it's more the need to make one's own voice matter more than filling an 11 (or 10, in the Central Time Zone) p.m. slot so NBC Universal didn't totally waste his considerable talent. Were I to be fortunate enough to meet him, my message would be: Don't be a stranger.

It will be strange, though, to tune into MSNBC at 10 p.m. and know that the page has turned. But the relentlessness of time engulfs us all. Whoever takes over his time slot will have big shoes to fill.

Progressives like me will miss his viewpoint, blended into the stories he wished to expose and garnished with sometimes edgy analysis. But late night's often about that. He turned the tables on it, as he did to rescue himself from a career than threatened to run into the ditch.

So long, Brian. Godspeed you on your way. Thanks for great journalism and the nightly knowledge that I could go to sleep confident that the world hadn't quite (as of yet) turned itself inside out.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster shot, like I am today. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Adam Schiff: He Can Write, Too. And Warns Us.

I may be wrong, but I don't recall any Republican legislator writing about the existential crisis our democracy is presently going through. I don't recall any of them being on record as saying that this, in part and/or whole, is somehow a good thing.

That's because in demonstrable areas, they're winning: the voter restrictions they've managed to introduce in states like Georgia and Texas have yet to be tested, though they look pretty formidable. And there's the fact that Republicans, still cowed by the monster they've created, don't want to say much, do much, or certainly write much that can be quoted by an exquisite liar and name-caller. California Congressman Adam Schiff has pulled off the road by writing Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could, and reminds us how tenuous it all was and still is.

We dangle near the cliff of autocracy. Its shadow engulfs us. We will not leave it soon or easily. Too many Republicans have lost their compasses and prefer what they believe to be lasting power to the shifting winds of the people's preferences, the insecurity and fickleness of which have, ironically, borne us forward these past 234 years. They do not see that they have been invited to someone's table not to share the feast, but to be feasted upon. Their disposability is the same as that of the Democrats'. Once they are not needed anymore--looking at you, Kevin McCarthy, the ultimate cat's paw--they will be jettisoned. The difference is that they are blinded by hopes of perpetual control and somehow believe they will share in the glory.

Schiff's book may eventually be hailed as the definitive text of how this gained sufficient momentum to disrupt democracy and make it largely irrelevant. He has written his account of the lead-up to, and implementation of, the first impeachment of ex-. He again walks you through the stages of discovery, the mistakes he himself made--minor glitches in the big picture--and the irrational Republican resistance by such paragons as Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy, John Radcliffe, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, the dissembling Mitch McConnell and of course, ex- himself. I still wonder how they can sleep at night.

The Republicans, of course, want us to forget all about this, want us to think of it as tourism gone briefly wild, want us to think of it as a blip on the radar screen. But Schiff sees this clearly, sees it for what it is: an existential threat to our way of life, whether a working majority of the country sees it likewise or not.

He allows the idealism, his and that of others, to be played out, but is no gee-whiz, aw-shucks purveyor of reality: He understands full well the danger under which we now live. The title itself tells you how he feels about it. Of course, he's absolutely correct. We may indeed be watching a slow-motion coup here, the sudden attempted one having barely failed.

Schiff brings back the awfulness by which ex- intimidated, or tried to intimidate, brave witnesses who did not give up on America: Alexander Vindman, the tragically compromised Marie Jovanovich, Fiona Hill, William Taylor. To read it again is particularly painful, but important to revisit and remember. Schiff makes sure that Vindman's words, once uttered, follow you through the remainder of the text: Here, right matters.

Schiff hammers us with that phrase again and again, reminding us of where we've been while fully clear-eyed about the simple fact that for an alarming percentage of Americans, actual facts matter little now. The sources of information or mis-information matter more. When that happens, nothing is true and everything is true. We become frozen in place, unable to act and most vulnerable to a siren who shouts easily absorbable but lying nonsense, stirring up anger uselessly.

Does right matter now? Or do simple numbers determine that? If it is the latter, we are surely in peril. If everything is political, the day will soon come when nothing needs to be political anymore. There will be one lie, one pseudo-truth, and someone's alternative reality will be the only thing that matters at all. It isn't mere speech, protected by law: When it is accepted by the body politic, it is a form of extortion, and Republicans are caving into it at enormous speed.

Schiff writes well and begins the book by taking you to the House chamber as the hoards descend upon it on January 6. It's revisiting a chilling scene, but the record of it is vital. I still believe that because the rogue House members who met with ex- on December 19 to extend their undying fealty to him and arrange, as much as they could, the compromise of the chamber itself, did not themselves know the place to which they would be taken for safety because of the unprecedented nature of the event. Had they known that and revealed it to the organizers of the riot through ex-, who clearly orchestrated it (or so says The Washington Post in an important three-part expose' written the week before last), there would have been a blood-letting of immense proportions, and the coup might indeed have succeeded. 

But the insurrectionists got to both chambers, found them empty by mere minutes, and had no other guidepost, so the attempt died right then and there. It was that close, because the mechanism by which the National Guard could have, and should have, responded by then had been stonewalled by those controlling the levers, anointed and supported by ex-, and sufficient help had not yet arrived. Had they found those rooms, many more people would have died, and ex- could have claimed far more martyrs to his 'cause' than just Ashli Babbit, whose fanaticism cost her her life. Many of them should be glad that all it has come to is a few brief prison terms.

Schiff, of course, survived and became the lead House manager of ex-'s first impeachment trial. That he litigated and spoke brilliantly is part of the point of this work, make no mistake: He's still a politician, and the smiling picture he displays on the inside of the jacket is almost a ruse. There's little here to smile about, and he knows it. But pol that he is, he won't frown unless he has to.

Because any well-known politician, especially on the national level, writes a book for a well-known reason: He's planning to move on up. His name resonates in too many households now, and the House of Representatives now seems a little crowded for him. His dislike of ex- is deservedly well-documented, but in terms of criticism, that's low-hanging fruit. It feels like he's holding back on people such as Nunes and the ever-notorious Rudy Giuliani. Some powder stays dry.

Katie Couric he's not. Tawdriness is left for others. In the popular vernacular of the day, he stays in his lane. The only "reveal" is that, with all the long days and nights of preparation, with the country and world staring at him and hanging on his every word at the trial and knowing his side would lose the vote pretty much ahead of time, he did all that with a horrible toothache, one that rejected a first fix and needed a root canal when all was finished. I've had three of those, and the only rational thing I could do while waiting for treatment was breathe. He got by on Advil and determination. That's a toughness few have.

Schiff has three choices of advancement, electorally: governor of California, U.S. Senator, or president. I hope, for his sake, that it isn't the latter. As unquestionably brilliant as he is, Schiff gives off a patrician air, and comes by it naturally: B.A. from Stanford, law degree from Harvard (a particular devotee of Laurence Tribe), and likes to relax by staring out into the sea and riding horses. His diet is disciplined. 

His manner. borrowing from both coasts, comes off as slightly unctuous. He reminds me a bit of John Kerry, another good man easily smeared, stereotyped and cornered by his background. Dianne Feinstein, senior Senator from his state, is now 87, so that could be Schiff's direction. But what Schiff has been through has forged him, too. We shall see. I wish him luck.

In the meantime, he has documented a time that, regardless of ultimate result, has been one of the most tumultuous in our history, and done so in a way that is digestible and thought-provoking. This is a valuable work that will last through whatever fate we have in store. I'll leave you with a few of his thoughts from the Epilogue, with which I can't help but agree and I bet you do, too:

That we are in trouble is undeniable. That this trouble is of our own making--even as it is being stoked by our adversaries overseas--is also undeniable. Democracy is hard. Civilization is not inevitable. Progress is not a straight line. Freedom is not assured. It is, as ever, something we have to fight for every day. So let us fight....And even as we fight, especially in this fight, we must never lose hold of our basic decency.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster shot, like I am on Wednesday. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark